Policy and practice briefingsNightlife, festivals and other recreational settings
Issues
Drug and alcohol use in nightlife settings, such as bars, nightclubs and other recreational venues, is linked to health and social problems, including acute health harms, aggressive behaviour and violence, and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. There are also longer-term health effects and addiction. Adverse social consequences may include drug dealing and public nuisance. Because many of these harms are associated with excessive use on a particular occasion, many responses aim to reduce the amounts of alcohol and drugs that are used.
European picture
Various environmental and regulatory approaches are used across Europe to address substance-related problems in nightlife and other recreational settings. These include zero tolerance rules, regulatory measures against venues that have visible problems, the training of door and security staff, health and safety measures, and training in recognising and responding to drug- and alcohol-related emergencies. Structured evidence-based environmental prevention approaches are now being used in more countries, as are local regulatory coalitions between the police, the nightlife industry and services (prevention and harm reduction). Two European projects, the Nightlife empowerment and well-being implementation project (NEWIP) and the Club Health Project, are developing good practice standards for people working in this area.
The number of drug-checking services available across Europe is growing. These use a variety of different models, including off-site testing centres and on-site testing at festivals and in nightclubs. The impacts of different models of drug checking need to be investigated.
Summary of the available evidence
Good practice in responding to drug problems in nightlife settings
The available research evidence and expert opinion suggest that a balanced approach is needed to tackle the drug- and alcohol-related health and social problems associated with recreational nightlife. There is less consensus on individual measures, although all of the following items merit consideration as part of a comprehensive response in this area:
- co-ordinated multicomponent interventions involving community stakeholders, generic health and emergency services, regulatory bodies, and policing and law enforcement;
- environmental strategies, such as providing chill-out rooms or free drinking water;
- training staff in these venues;
- rapid emergency response measures;
- early warning systems and monitoring of substances being consumed, including drug-checking services;
- provision of prevention and harm reduction materials — although on their own they are unlikely to be effective.
Overall, the evidence for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm is stronger than that for drug-related harm.
Implications for policy and practice
Basics
- Provision of environmental prevention and harm reduction interventions, supported by the guidelines and standards drawn up in the NEWIP and Club Health projects, should be implemented as appropriate.
- There should be provision of emergency health care to deal with adverse events in recreational settings and linked to emergency departments. The European guidelines may be useful here and need to be built on.
- Community-based initiatives that deliver a range of co-ordinated interventions through a multi-agency partnership are more effective than single interventions. They often combine community mobilisation, staff training and enforcement and appear to be effective in reducing violence, problem drinking and street accidents.
Opportunities
- Increase the sharing of good practice and guidelines for prevention and harm reduction interventions in these settings and promote evaluation of their effectiveness.
- Drug-checking services have the potential to be useful both for reducing harmful use of drugs and for monitoring what drugs are on the market. However, research is needed into the effectiveness of different models of provision and their appropriateness in different scenarios.
Gaps
- The evidence on the effects of information provision for clubbers/peer education (often harm reduction) is limited. It has the potential to be counterproductive so more research is needed on the most effective ways to present information on risks, safe dosing etc.
Explore all resources in the Best practice portal
About the best practice portal
Disclaimer
While every effort is made to ensure that the information on this page is accurate and up to date, please note that it is not a substitute for the exercise of professional or clinical judgement and we do not intend you to rely upon it when making (or refraining from making) any clinical or individual decision. For more information, please see the Disclaimer in our legal notice.
Best practice definition
Best practice is the best application of available evidence to current activities in the drugs field.
- underlying evidence should be relevant to the problems and issues affecting those involved (professionals, policymakers, drug users, their families);
- methods should be transparent, reliable and transferable and all appropriate evidence should be considered in the classification process;
- experience in implementation, adaptation and training should be systematically collected and made available;
- contextual factors should be studied by modelling different prevalence levels so as to assess the impact of an intervention on the population; and
- evidence of effectiveness and feasibility of implementation should both be considered for the broader decision-making process.
This definition was agreed by a group of experts including the Chairman of the EMCDDA Management Board João Goulão; members of the EMCDDA Scientific Committee; policymakers and top-level researchers in the areas of treatment, prevention and harm reduction.
Best practice portal
The Best practice portal is a resource for professionals, policymakers and researchers in the drugs field. We provide information on the available evidence on drug-related prevention, treatment and harm reduction, focusing on the European context. The evidence is compiled following an explicit methodological process, and is presented according to client profiles. The client profiles are designed according to the European data on illicit drug users collected at the EMCDDA. Currently, the profiles are organised around the main substance of use. We acknowledge that in reality people often use multiple drugs and the interventions provided might reflect this. We are therefore working on how best to accommodate this aspect in the future. In the portal we also provide an overview of the available quality standards and guidelines in the European Union (EU) Member States.
The portal was developed to respond to the EU drugs action plan (2009–12) and specifically to ‘enhance the quality and effectiveness of drug demand reduction activities, taking account of specific needs of drug users according to gender’. In particular, actions 17 and 19 aimed at exchanging ‘good practice guidelines/quality standards for prevention, treatment, harm reduction and rehabilitation interventions and services’ and ‘to develop an EU consensus on minimum quality standards and benchmarks for prevention, treatment, harm reduction and rehabilitation’.
The portal will be continuously updated as information and research on interventions emerges.
Acknowledgments
- Alan Lodwick
- Angelina Brotherhood
- Artur Malczewski
- Ave Tallu
- Charlotte Davies
- Elias Allara
- Fabrizio Faggiano
- Franz Trautman
- Joao Goulao
- John Strang
- Laura Amato
- Marina Davoli
- Marion Weigl
- Maurizio Coletti
- Michael Farrell
- Peer Van der Kreeft
- Richard Velleman
- Tim Pfeiffer-Gerschel
Collaborations and patnerships with external organisations
Below are some of the ongoing collaborations and partnerships involving the EMCDDA's Best practice portal and external organisations.
Collaborations and partnerships in best practice
